North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Could a stock of army blankets, or cheap fleece throws be available in the guards compartment for distribution to those who feel cold on the journey?

 

I don’t know their circumstances, but heard the comments - and there were no kids. But as you could drive to Whitby, park and be sat down for lunch before the train arrived, it was before pre-booking and in season, I’m much less sure that they would have been so determined to travel. Fares were also significantly lower.

 

Of course the Mark 1's are "tucked up warm" as you suggest because their occupation of the carriage stable was the basis on which NLHF funds for its construction were made available. The express purpose and justification for the grant was to get the Mark 1's under cover to extend their service life between major overhauls. Maybe that restriction on use has been bent a little .e.g. 76079, but ignoring it would be foolish if the railway hoped to attract further NLHF grant support.

 

A boiler was provided but even after repairs had been done to it, it failed when on test. I’m not sure where the onus to fit it lay but the scheme was abandoned by mutual consent, as far as I know.

 

That’s down at the North Norfolk Railway, I believe. The picture I saw looked excellent

 

Part of the justification for the HLF funding for Pickering Station roof was that the teak carriages could be stored under it in the winter months - have they ever been, and did that grate with HLF to the extent that they refused to fund the carriage shed? I don't think so, in either case! Please don't post these unjustifiable scaremongering comments! It would never cause problems to put 5061 here.

 

Deleted.

 

Action from yesterday afternoon with a great run up the hill !

 

You may prefer to ignore a reminder of the factual situation but that doesn't alter the reason NLHF was prepared to help fund the carriage stable. Are you suggesting seriously that a charity should accept donations for a specified purpose and then use them for another?

 

It hasn't stopped 76079 being put in there, presumably to prevent deterioration. I think the shed is supposed to house ca. 40 vehicles, are you seriously suggesting that using it to keep just two long-term under-storage locomotives from deteriorating further is really going to cause outrage to those who funded it (particularly when the NYMR funded around half of it via donations. Perhaps it should seek an opinion from those who donated as to whether they mind? Perhaps it could ask the same question of HLF? After all, they don't seem to mind the shed at Kidderminster, which they also funded, being used similarly. But perhaps the SVR doesn't have a lawyer who sees imaginary problems around every corner, stopping sensible moves being made?

 

It’s obviously important to consider the wishes of a funder, but unless there is an explicit stipulation in a funding agreement, you wonder how long any “moral” restriction could apply? Would you still be saying “nothing except mark 1s” fifty years hence? By their very nature, railway vehicles are mobile.

FWIW, the carriage shed at Sheffield Park (which was also largely funded by the HLF as part of a larger project) normally has the odd loco in it, it is where 847 is at the moment, and 9017 spent some time there before going off to Aberystwyth.

Tom

 

Obviously not and I highlighted the temporary residence of 76079. It's a matter of degree. The original post suggested unequivocally that demic locos and wooden bodied stock should be stored in the carriage stable instead of Mark 1's. Whether that's sensible or not is not material. NLHF funding was given specifically to protect and extend the service life the Mark 1 stock. Booting it out as suggested would mean the charity prioritising protection of third party owned assets which in many cases it has only limited potential use for.

 

There were a lot numbered in the 47/7 that were nothing to do with the push pull service but had the long range tanks

 

Would you care to answer the point made about the overall roof? I am afraid that I feel you sometimes deflect rather than address a question directly.

Times is hard. (And this next comment is aimed at more than just the Moors). It has never been more important to have strong and consistent commercial leadership that actually understands what it is that it is selling

 

It's more than a moral commitment. It's the fundamental reason funding was provided with its benefit being measured by extending the current period between major overhauls for Mark 1 stock so that suggests a period of at least 20 years or so. NLHF do check activity plans to see if the grant is achieving the purposes for which it was given. As suggested the odd loco or coach is not a problem especially if its relatively short term but that wasn't what was being suggested!

 

Is it even true that the funding was specifically for the building to house MK 1 carriages? I thought the application was for covered accommodation for vintage carriages? It seems absurd to me (and I suspect all other readers here) to define commonplace Mk 1s as "more vintage" than relatively rare teak bodied stock. Is that a blinkered lawyer's definition that I'm to dim to understand? Perhaps an audit of the Mk 1s should be carried out to evict the ones that are still privately owned, as I believe some are? Is the NYMR no longer a museum with a responsibility for taking care of its rarer exhibits, even though it has only limited use for them? Perhaps HLF should be informed of that too? Let's go back to the beginning here - I suggested that as there is already a steam loco stored in said shed there ought to be room for a second one. I don't think that the teak vehicles that have run for many years before being put into the "get rid of, if the owners don't want to bear the full costs of the NYMR's wearing their wheels out" category - i.e. the long-standing policy of "run it till it drops then get rid". If I was a Trust or PLC Board member worrying about anything I'd be worrying about someone complaining to HLF about that particular approach to heritage assets!

 

I don't suppose he will, tbh. He'll try to divert the answer into something else about charitable objectives or something about Mk 1s being "heritage" or ..... etc. etc. Look back down the thread, how many times does he answer specific questions directly?

 

Several of us are still waiting for how the SMT intend stopping the £0.5M black hole (hopefully not by making it £0.7m )…
Some railways on their knees (or perceived to be ) seem to have turned a corner by changes at the top eg KESR,Bluebell,SVR ..I fear NYMR don’t have that option due to their self vetting process and all you’d find round the corner is a wall of doom and excuses .

 

I don't expect a straight answer to this question either, just some bland and vague "it's being addressed" type of answer.